Monday, June 02, 2014

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

The war has killed at least 134,000 Iraqi civilians and may have contributed to the deaths of as many as four times that number, according to the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.

When security forces, insurgents, journalists and humanitarian workers were included, the war’s death toll rose to an estimated 176,000 to 189,000, the study said.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I guess it's time for you to acknowledge the aggressive, backroom "WAR ON TEH MENS" underway by the Ds as well. And, since poll numbers apparently equal intent, you can now acknowledge the bitter hatred that Ds have of white men - especially older white men.

Because since Ds don't poll well with that group, clearly THE WAR IS ON!

Why do Ds hate white men so?

Are you being serious?

First of all I actually started this sub-thread linking to a story of the day and suggesting it would feed an existing narrative. Their are many women who think the GOP is against them. Really. And I linked polling to suggest that the GOP has gotten worse with women. It is part of - as I said - an existing narrative.

If you don't like the narrative that is fine, but why on earth are you attacking me about it? I did not invent the narrative, I am merely suggesting the topical political story reinforces that narrative.

And by the way there are substantive policies the GOP consistently follows (like the story that started the sub thread) that go along with the narrative. It is not a fantasy born out of hysterical liberals minds. These are real policies. I am willing to discuss them.

You however seem to want to engage in hysterics, personal attacks, and so on. Though I admit there is a glimmer of truth in what you said, there are truly white men that think the Democrats are out to get them. The constant whining about affirmative action is - in fact - white men feeling (with some justification I admit) that democratic policies are against them.

That very fact is one of the reasons that I much prefer class based affirmative action to race based affirmative action.

Like I said we can discuss the facts - many women do feel that the GOP does not have their best interests at heart and the polling shows this clearly - or you can engage in a hissy fit. Up to you.

And by the way the new OTP thread is up. And for those who cried and whined so last month, I made sure it was a nice baseball related article with no hint of something that would hurt people's feelings.

Predictably, once Mr. McCain ran for president again in 2008 and Democrats started sending negative messages about him, the public quickly came to see him as a conventional partisan. By late October 2008, a CBS/New York Times poll found that only 11 percent of Democrats and 38 percent of independents had a favorable view of him. Ms. Clinton’s image is undergoing a similar transformation.

As both cases illustrate, we tend to overrate the importance of candidate image, which is largely a function of the flow of partisan messages. When opposition elites withhold criticism during, say, a presidential honeymoon or a foreign policy crisis, politicians can seem unstoppable, but when normal politics resume, their images — and their poll numbers — quickly return to earth. The same will be true for Ms. Clinton.

Let me make this simpler: A lot of women don't like Republican policies. And a lot of men don't like Democratic policies.

I guess it's time for you to acknowledge the aggressive, backroom "WAR ON TEH MENS" underway by the Ds as well. And, since poll numbers apparently equal intent, you can now acknowledge the bitter hatred that Ds have of white men - especially older white men.

Because since Ds don't poll well with that group, clearly THE WAR IS ON!

Why do Ds hate white men so?

This group sounds like your wet dream. And no, it's not from The Onion:

4601: Do you believe the Rs are undertaking a "War on Women," or do you recognize it as being silly propaganda that can easily be matched with an equally ridiculous "War on Men" claim by Rs? And whose mind got changed or inflamed by an amazingly narrow Supreme Court decision? You're projecting.

The rest of the post is so insulting that I won't bother to respond, other than to note that your ability to piss off countless posters here and never seem to self-reflect on it is impressive in its own way.

Predictably, once Mr. McCain ran for president again in 2008 and Democrats started sending negative messages about him, the public quickly came to see him as a conventional partisan. By late October 2008, a CBS/New York Times poll found that only 11 percent of Democrats and 38 percent of independents had a favorable view of him. Ms. Clinton’s image is undergoing a similar transformation.

As both cases illustrate, we tend to overrate the importance of candidate image, which is largely a function of the flow of partisan messages. When opposition elites withhold criticism during, say, a presidential honeymoon or a foreign policy crisis, politicians can seem unstoppable, but when normal politics resume, their images — and their poll numbers — quickly return to earth. The same will be true for Ms. Clinton.

Right, and her former supporters will rush to embrace Rand Paul or some other Tea Party Republican. You almost have to wonder what sort of planet writers like this are living on.

The rest of the post is so insulting that I won't bother to respond, other than to note that your ability to piss off countless posters here and never seem to self-reflect on it is impressive in its own way.

He's on the autistic spectrum and I honestly think he doesn't realize how insulting he often is to people who have in no way insulted him.

Do you believe the Rs are undertaking a "War on Women," or do you recognize it as being silly propaganda that can easily be matched with an equally ridiculous "War on Men" claim by Rs? And whose mind got changed or inflamed by an amazingly narrow Supreme Court decision? You're projecting.

The "War on Women" meme is crude and propagandistic, and I doubt if it's more than a rhetorical device used as a fundraising tactic. But if you examine the Republicans' records on a whole slew of non-abortion related issues, there's definitely a pattern of benign neglect at best. I'm not sure how one reconciles votes against abortion rights with votes against expanded child care centers, but then keeping taxes down to a bare minimum has never been my highest priority.

And "War on Men"? Please. That article I linked to in #4604 pretty much summarizes the mental state of those holding that outlook. It's a world of Rays, SugarBears and Mortys.

4601: Do you believe the Rs are undertaking a "War on Women," or do you recognize it as being silly propaganda that can easily be matched with an equally ridiculous "War on Men" claim by Rs? And whose mind got changed or inflamed by an amazingly narrow Supreme Court decision? You're projecting.

I know there is an established War on Women narrative. I know women favor Team Blue over Team Red. I believe the recent SC decision is a data point in the reason why these two things are facts. You can talk about the War on Men the Democrats are engaged in if you want. I realize their are some - even here on this site - who think this way. We have had discussions about men's rights here before, and some of the Liberals on the board were on that side (Rickey! and Morty I believe went that way, if I am wrong, sorry guys).

When a story with the "juice" of the Bobby Lobby story comes along and demonstrates the Democrats "War on Men" feel free to bring it up and I will gladly discuss it. The fact that you are having an extreme visceral reaction suggests more about you than it does the story or me.

The rest of the post is so insulting that I won't bother to respond, other than to note that your ability to piss off countless posters here and never seem to self-reflect on it is impressive in its own way.

So which part is insulting? Yes I suggest you are having a hissy fit. Of course I also admit you are in part correct and suggest that thing you are correct about is a reason (not the full reason, but part of it) for a policy I have argued for previously. And I expressed a willingness to discuss things. And I never attacked you, though I have attacked your emotional posts on the subject.

I neither try to piss off posters nor am I going to lose sleep over it. it is a political discussion board on the internet. Of course people are going to express strong opinions and some people will get upset. You have annoyed plenty of people previously (not me, but others), but so what? It doesn't speak to your or my posts directly, unless the goal is to only post inoffensive political opinions.

The "War on Women" meme is crude and propagandistic, and I doubt if it's more than a rhetorical device used as a fundraising tactic. But if you examine the Republicans' records on a whole slew of non-abortion related issues, there's definitely a pattern of benign neglect at best. I'm not sure how one reconciles votes against abortion rights with votes against expanded child care centers, but then keeping taxes down to a bare minimum has never been my highest priority.

Yet 45%+ of women consistently vote for Republicans. Are they gender-traitors?

Not all women feel like they need Gov't to take care of their every need.

He's on the autistic spectrum and I honestly think he doesn't realize how insulting he often is to people who have in no way insulted him.

Is being autistic an insult here? I mean I am not autistic, but my son is on the spectrum (as is the ex-wife, btw) so I am very familiar with it. But thanks for the diagnosis Dr. GF, you are as correct here as usual.

Note: For the record the vast majority of the time when I am insulting someone it is on purpose. There was that one time a remark of mine was (accidentally) way out of line towards Ray, and when it was pointed out I apologized. But if your feelings are ever hurt let me know and I will ease up on you GF and send you some nice yummy ice cream.

The "War on Women" meme is crude and propagandistic, and I doubt if it's more than a rhetorical device used as a fundraising tactic. But if you examine the Republicans' records on a whole slew of non-abortion related issues, there's definitely a pattern of benign neglect at best. I'm not sure how one reconciles votes against abortion rights with votes against expanded child care centers, but then keeping taxes down to a bare minimum has never been my highest priority.

Yet 45%+ of women consistently vote for Republicans. Are they gender-traitors?

Of course not, and I've never used that term. But we'll see if the next GOP candidate can get 45% of the vote against Hillary Clinton. The gender gap already went from 12% in 2008 to 18% in 2012.

EDIT: If you want to respond to this, please copy and paste it in the June thread. We don't want to offend Brown Diaper Baby Joey.

Is being autistic an insult here? I mean I am not autistic, but my son is on the spectrum (as is the ex-wife, btw) so I am very familiar with it. But thanks for the diagnosis Dr. GF, you are as correct here as usual.

Of course it's not an insult, but I can see how you'd have difficulty understanding the nuances of human interaction. Color me shocked that the rest of your family is autistic though. No one could have possibly seen THAT coming.

Of course it's not an insult, but I can see how you'd have difficulty understanding the nuances of human interaction. Color me shocked that the rest of your family is autistic though. No one could have possibly seen THAT coming.

I have two boys, one is on the spectrum (and like his mother) the other is not (and more like me). I have many other issues*, but autism is not one of them. You should go back to talking about my lily white suburb, that is at least reality based.

* For example I am short, overly analytical, direction impaired, a poor speller, and feel bad I am still posting in last months thread.

On a politics thread it is mentioned this feeds a political narrative of the GOP's war on women, and that actual people feel that way and I get these responses - and I am hysterical and over the top.

I would say that calling it a "War on Women" is not necessarily hysterical, but it is way over the top. I also think you're contributing to the problem of crappy dialogue in this country when you call it that or legitimize the phrase.

I would say that calling it a "War on Women" is not necessarily hysterical, but it is way over the top. I also think you're contributing to the problem of crappy dialogue in this country when you call it that or legitimize the phrase.

You realize I said it reinforced the existing narrative, gave it that label, and was willing to acknowledge the terrible label:

If you actually pay attention to what the GOP is doing it is pretty clearly anti-woman (as women see it) and anti-minority (as minorities see it). You can mock the exact verbiage all you want - lord knows I have mocked War on Drugs, War on Poverty, and War on Terrorism - however the victims of this "war" very much perceive it that way.

In and of itself the ruling may not matter much, but it is another data point showing who is on what side.

I expect better reading comprehension from you, but I admit my actual words were swallowed up by hysteria and you might have missed what I actually said rather than what some folks thought I said.